Thank you, Mr President, for your words of welcome to me.
Allow me also to congratulate you, on behalf of the Committee of
Ministers, on your election to the office of President of the Assembly.
I am convinced that the excellent relations you established with
the Committee of Ministers as soon as you became Acting President will
continue and be intensified – as is essential in this period, marked
as it is by an immense range of developments.

We have experienced events of tremendous political significance
since your session last September: the construction of Europe has
advanced, at the level of the European Community, with the conclusion
of the Maastricht Agreements and, between it and EFTA, with the
efforts aimed at creating a European economic area; reforms have
progressed in several countries of central and eastern Europe, which
in this way are committed to the process of democratisation and
the market economy; the Soviet empire has crumbled, and the crisis
in Yugoslavia has led to civil war and finally the break-up of the
country.

Since 1989, when the Berlin wall came down, the pace of our
continent’s history has quickened remarkably, and it is no exaggeration
to say that we have witnessed not only the veritable end of the
post-war period and the divisions of Yalta, but also the crumbling
of the Soviet edifice and the Communist bloc, together with the ideology
and system on which it had been based for close on seventy-five
years.

A new Europe is thus emerging before our eyes.

Delighted though we are to see the countries of central and
eastern Europe recover their liberty, draw closer to democratic
Europe and even accede to the Council of Europe, we must not indulge
in complacent optimism; the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia
can, of course, place several newly created and recognised states
on the path to reform, but it also entails considerable perils which
could result in fresh conflicts, if we are not vigilant. We must
do everything we can to avoid them.

The precarious situation of certain minorities, a resurgence
of exacerbated nationalism, poverty and indeed famine all constitute
a threat to the eastern part of our continent and could lead to
an explosive situation. It is up to us, in a spirit of solidarity,
and with courage and imagination, to help the peoples who were separated from
us for so long by an iron curtain in their democratic, economic
and social reforms; this is the price to be paid for the peace of
our continent.

But the fact that our eyes are naturally turned to central
and eastern Europe must not stop us from interesting ourselves also
in the Mediterranean basin and equilibrium in this region. We must
continue to forge cultural, economic and other ties – on a pragmatic
basis – so as to promote better understanding among the countries on
either side of the Mediterranean.

Mr President, the session of the Committee of Ministers held
on 26 November, when exciting international events were crowding
in upon each other, was of a special importance. We not only looked
at events in the countries of central and eastern Europe and their
relations with the Council of Europe, but we also sought to define
what the political tasks of our Organisation will be in the Europe
of today.

With regard to the countries of central and eastern Europe,
the highlight of our session was certainly Poland’s accession to
the Council of Europe. We are glad that this country, whose history
has been marked by so much suffering, is at last a member of our
great democratic family, and it gives me pleasure to greet, in this
hémicycle, the Polish parliamentary delegation, which for the first
time as a full member is attending a plenary session of your Assembly,
which the President of the Republic of Poland, Mr Lech Walesa, honoured
with his presence this morning.

We also looked at the prospects for future accessions, expressing
the hope that Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia can become
members of the Council of Europe in the course of 1992. On the occasion
of our ministerial session, we held exchanges of views with our
opposite numbers from the Baltic states on co-operation between
the Council of Europe and their countries. I am delighted, moreover,
that the Assembly has conferred special guest status on parliamentary
delegations from these countries.

We also expressed encouragement for the continuation and intensification
of co-operation with Romania and Albania, which should help these
countries in their democratic reforms and open the way to their
future accession.

It was in this spirit that the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Romania, Mr Nastese, on 19 December deposited his country’s instrument
of accession to the European Cultural Convention and discussed the
situation in his country and the reforms under way with the Ministers’
Deputies.

Co-operation with Albania has been stepped up, and in the
sphere of education the Council of Europe is, in particular, co-ordinating
an operation to provide emergency aid to schools.

The dramatic situation in Yugoslavia has exercised us acutely;
the Deputies have devoted several special meetings to it, and on
8 October 1991 suspended cooperation with the authorities of that
country as a result of events there and, in particular, the violence
and violations of human rights. At our ministerial meeting in November,
we confirmed our support for the efforts of the European Community,
the CSCE and the United Nations to find an overall and peaceful
solution. We reminded all the bodies concerned that when the time comes
the Council of Europe maintains at their disposal its experience
concerning human rights, the protection of minorities and in the
legal and constitutional fields.

We also affirmed our readiness to re-examine the Council of
Europe’s relationships with all parties which co-operate in good
faith in order to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis, founded
on the principles of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights
and the rule of law.

Recent developments, as well as the recognition of Croatia
and Slovenia by most of our member states, should make it possible
for us to begin officially and speedily to co-operate with these
new states, with a view to helping them in their democratic reforms.

I note with interest, Mr President, that your Assembly has
accorded Slovenia special guest status and will be debating Yugoslavia
tomorrow.

The disappearance of the Soviet Union and the creation of
new states, several of which have already been recognised by numerous
Council of Europe member countries, are fresh challenges not only
for our member countries but also for those heading the process
of European construction.

New questions arise, in fact, concerning the future architecture
of Europe. At our ministerial meeting in November, when the Soviet
Union was still in existence, we decided to expand contacts and
co-operation “with the Republics embarking upon the road to democracy,
the rule of law and the protection of human rights, the basic principles
of the Council of Europe, within the political and security equilibrium
in Europe”.

In the wake of the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) in Minsk on 8 December 1991, the Alma-Ata agreement
of 21 December and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the question
of relations between the Council of Europe and the successors of
the USSR arises in different terms, and is being studied in depth
by the Committee of Ministers.

The Russian Federation might not automatically and necessarily
represent all the republics of the former Soviet Union. The Russian
Federation has said it is ready to assume all the USSR’s obligations
towards the Council of Europe, and accordingly wishes to pursue
the relations established with the organisation.

I shall stray from my text in order to stress that the Russian
Federation is not necessarily or automatically the representative
of all the republics of the former Soviet Union. The Ministers’
Deputies are also considering the question of contacts with the
other republics, notably with those having expressly indicated their
interest in such contacts.

I have been interested to learn that your Assembly, Mr President,
has decided to give the Parliament of the Russian Federation special
guest status, and will be holding meetings during the present session
with parliamentary delegations from several other republics.

We shall also be following with keen interest your current
affairs debate on Thursday on developments in the former Soviet
Union. I am convinced, for my part, that everything must be done
to avoid tension in this region which might produce further insecurity
– and indeed grave conflict in Europe.

The Council of Europe is gradually becoming a forum for pan-European
co-operation; it is affirming its role and responsibilities in the
building of the greater Europe, and is developing its relations
with the European Community and the CSCE, on the basis of complementarity.

In the new Europe which is emerging, the Conference on Security
and Co-operation in Europe plays an important role which is being
adjusted to the new situation on the continent. Since the Paris
Summit in November 1990, relations between the Council of Europe
and the CSCE have been improved, intensified and consolidated, and
our organisation was able to make an extremely valuable contribution
to various CSCE meetings held in 1991.

We expressed our support at our ministerial session in November
for strengthening effective liaison with the CSCE with a view to
making the best use of the Council of Europe’s experience and capacities.
The Ministers’ Deputies are considering in this context ways of
making a fresh step forward here, by offering to allow all the CSCE
states to take part, on an equal footing, in some of the Council
of Europe’s intergovernmental activities with a bearing on the human
dimension – notably in the field of cultural co-operation.

Our co-operation with the European Community is developing
satisfactorily, and on 20 November I attended the fifth quadripartite
Community-Council of Europe meeting, at which we of course discussed
the Yugoslav crisis and events in the Soviet Union, as well as the
co-ordination of assistance programmes for the countries of central
and eastern Europe, the CSCE and the European economic area.

We emphasised at our ministerial meeting in November the need
to continue developing the Council of Europe’s role as a rallying
point and forum for co-operation in today’s Europe. Let us not forget
that it was conceived to gather together the peoples of Europe on
the basis of values – pluralist democracy, human rights, the rule
of law – whose respect is the prime guarantee of stability and peace
on this continent. It constitutes a directly available structure
for reception and co-operation of which the countries of central
and eastern Europe have an immediate need, and in which they all
show a very strong interest.

The Committee of Ministers was anxious, taking into account
these various factors, to give a clear political signal and to set
a precise course as regards the Council of Europe’s readiness to
face up to its new political tasks. It considered several initiatives
in this respect, suggested in a memorandum by the Secretary General.

The Deputies are at present considering the implementation
of some of the proposals put forward by Mrs Lalumière, notably those
concerning a development plan for law in the countries of central
and eastern Europe and a programme for local democracy. These initiatives
have met with wide support, and I hope that they can be carried
out at an early date.

The programmes of assistance and co-operation with central
and east European countries are playing a vital role. It is for
this reason that we have included in the 1992 budget a 100 % increase
for those programmes, by comparison with 1991. On top of that will
come the development plan for law and the programme for local democracy
which I have already mentioned, and which should be funded in part
by voluntary contributions.

My country and other countries have already made such contributions
in the past, and I hope that many others will follow suit.

Switzerland, for its part, is prepared to make an additional
contribution in 1992 – as last year – of the sum of one million
French francs to help fund the programmes for central and eastern
Europe.

In the rescaling of the dimension of the Council of Europe’s
role, we shall have to develop our relations with the United States
and Canada, which are also members of the CSCE. It is important,
therefore, that we should make ourselves known to the American authorities,
be it the Administration or Congress, point out our achievements
and potential, in order to demonstrate our role and responsibilities
throughout the continent of Europe.

For the purpose of carrying out a detailed information campaign,
I have decided, as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, to go
to Washington on 10 and 11 February, in the company of the

Secretary General, Mrs Lalumière. A meeting with President
Bush is planned.

The purpose of this initiative will be to give the United
States an overall view of the Council of Europe, to stress its competences
and the highly specific contributions it can make to the CSCE, but
also to make those in positions of authority in the United States
aware of our Organisation’s decisive role in the new European context.

For, in its task of consolidating and deepening the democratic
structures in central and eastern Europe, in its role of progressively
and irreversibly integrating those countries into a Europe based
on our common heritage, our Organisation is making an essential
contribution to the stability and balanced development of the greater Europe.

Our visit to the United States will be followed by a visit
to Canada by a group of senior officials.

I trust, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, – since the United
States Congress has gone into recess at the very moment of our visit
– that, at parliamentary level also, you will be able to reply directly
to the questions put to us by its members.

The Council of Europe makes an essential contribution to European
construction through the functioning of the European Convention
on Human Rights and its control machinery – for which there is no
parallel anywhere in the world.

I should like to stress the very valuable work carried out
by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, but we must
recognise that their already heavy workload, which leads to the
lengthening of proceedings, could further increase with future accessions
to the Convention.

We instructed the Ministers’ Deputies at our ministerial meeting
in November to speed up work on reform of the control mechanisms
of this Convention, as a first priority, and they will be holding
a first discussion on this issue in a few days’ time.

It seems to me that the time has come to make a political
choice and provide the encouragement needed if we are to bring about,
without delay, a far-reaching reform in the functioning of the Convention.

The speed of developments which we have witnessed in Europe
in the last few months, and the resultant rescaling of the Council
of Europe, also make it necessary to carry out a more general reform
of our Organisation.

Your Assembly has set up an ad hoc committee to review the
Statute, and the Committee of Ministers has established a working
party on the institutional role of the Council of Europe, which
is proceeding on a pragmatic basis. The exercise is of course both
complex and delicate, and at the present stage it is difficult to predict
the outcome; but the task must be pursued with tenacity.

The work carried out to date by the Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers affords a glimpse of the problems and shortcomings.
Efforts are now being made on all sides to find solutions, and it
would be useful for the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers,
in due course, to exchange views on this matter.

I know that consideration has been given on both sides to
the definition of the Council of Europe’s role in a pan-European
context, a new version of associate member status and the creation
of an observer status, the modernisation of working methods and
the means by which the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities
of Europe (CLRAE) can be given its rightful place in our organisation.

All these are questions to which we attach considerable importance,
and to which we hope shortly to find pragmatic responses, in the
interests of the evolution of the Council of Europe and its role
in the longer term. We are convinced, in fact, that our Organisation
has and will continue to have an ever more important role to play,
and the Swiss Chairmanship will make every effort to encourage and
promote that role.

Mr President, as President of the Swiss Confederation, I am
delighted at the opportunity given to me to recall my country’s
deep attachment to the Council of Europe, to the values it represents,
and to its experience developed over the last forty years.

These are well known to us all, but I would like to mention
here one field in which the Council of Europe has achieved important
progress, and in which it must continue its effort: I am referring
to its activities with regard to regional planning and the protection
of the natural environment.

The events and historical developments which we are witnessing,
and the resulting consequences, give a new dimension and new responsibilities
to the Council of Europe. In this context, the pan-European mission
of the Council of Europe has established itself within the international
community. I am personally delighted because I consider that this
pan-European dimension corresponds perfectly to the potential of
our Organisation, to its objectives and to the universality of its
values.

We now come to parliamentary questions for oral answer. I
would remind the Assembly that the Minister will answer questions
only from those members who are present. Eleven questions have been
tabled. They are contained in Document 6564. I will allow a brief
thirty second supplementary question after the Minister’s reply.

We come now to Question No. I tabled by Mr Hardy:

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers whether
the Committee is fully aware of the need for urgent and substantial
measures to be taken to enable this rapidly extending organisation
to operate effectively.

I call Mr Felber to reply to this question.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I can assure the honourable Representative that the Committee
of Ministers is aware of the need for measures to be taken to enable
the Council of Europe to operate effectively.

Indeed, as I mentioned in my communication, the working party
on the Organisation’s institutional role established by the Committee
of Ministers has already begun its work on redefining the Council
of Europe’s role in the changing Europe in which we live.

This working party will also consider substantial changes
to the Organisation’s Statute, a task being undertaken in parallel
with an ad hoc committee of this Assembly.

Moreover, in terms of the Organisation’s budgetary resources,
I would like to add that the Committee of Ministers recently adopted
an ordinary budget for 1992 that represents an increase in nominal
terms of 14,64 % with regard to 1991. This, moreover, followed an
increase in 1991 of 18,56 % in nominal terms as compared with 1990.

Furthermore, in view of our Organisation’s crucial role as
a directly available structure for reception of and co-operation
with the emergent democracies of central and eastern Europe, the
Committee of Ministers voted an increase for 1992 of 100 %, compared
with 1991, for budgetary appropriations under Vote IX – Co-operation with
the countries of central and eastern Europe – to cater both for
the enlarged number of beneficiary countries and for the increased
number of fields in which the Council’s assistance is being sought.

THE PRESIDENT

I call Mr Hardy
to ask a supplementary question.

Mr HARDY (United Kingdom)

I am most
grateful. Does the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers appreciate,
however, that although this Organisation is ideally structured to
deal with the Europe of the quinze rather than the rapidly approaching
Europe of the quarante-cinq, the conditions that face many committees
in the Paris office are already intolerable? I hope that the Committee
of Ministers will take note that the Palais de l’Europe in this
delightful city may be sufficiently spacious but the transport problems
that confront us in approaching the city are far too acute for it
to be considered in this context. I ask the Chairman and his colleagues
to be particularly attentive to what will be said on Thursday in
the transport debate about the deplorable experience of my colleagues
and myself in trying to reach this Assembly.

(translation)

The honourable Representative has raised a whole series of
questions, but if we try to answer them before solving the problems
posed by the countries of central and eastern Europe, their peoples
will have died or tom one another apart in the meantime.

Before resolving problems of premises or transport, we must
give immediate proof of our solidarity. We have done so by increasing
our budget under this heading, but we know that action by the Council
of Europe alone will not be enough to assist all the countries that
need our help.

The most crucial problem today is to co-ordinate the aid that
the industrialised countries as a whole and Europe will contribute
in order to resolve the difficulties.

I also hope to be able to report to the Committee of Ministers
that we have the support of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe, which will try to help us inject an element of dynamism
into the solutions we shall have to find.

THE PRESIDENT

I am sure
that that is a two-way traffic, Minister. We look forward to that
cooperation from you as well.

We come to Question No. 2 tabled by Mr Hunault:

Considering that Europe is clearly in a state of institutional
confusion:

– the Council of Europe (twenty-six states plus states enjoying
special guest status to the Parliamentary Assembly);

– the EEC, based on the Treaty of Rome, the Single European
Act and the forthcoming Treaty of Maastricht (six then nine then
twelve states and now “twelve plus” since German reunification);

– Western European Union, established by the Treaty of Brussels
(seven states – today nine);

– the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, created
by the 1975 Helsinki Agreement and confirmed by the Paris Charter
of November 1990, which includes thirty-five states with more to
follow in the near future;

– European Free Trade Agreement,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers:

– whether he considers that it is time to clarify this situation;

– whether in his opinion the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe could become the Constituent Assembly of Europe;

– whether it is not the Assembly’s natural and historic task
to create the institutions of this greater Europe, which is currently
being established in such a disorderly fashion;

– whether it is not time to outline, as rapidly as possible,
the shape of the confederation which our continent will have to
develop.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I leave responsibility for his opinion concerning institutional
confusion in Europe with the honourable parliamentarian, Mr Hunault
himself. For while it is true that there are a great many institutions,
I note that each of them has its own role to play and has seen its
work increase since the upheavals in central and eastern Europe.

With the Maastricht Agreements, the European Community, the
hard core of European integration, has undeniably taken a decisive
step towards European union. It is now preparing for enlargement
and concluding association agreements with a number of central and
eastern European states.

The dynamic of the European Community and the lessons learned
from the Gulf war have lent WEU a new interest in the specific field
of European defence.

After the meeting of foreign ministers in Prague last week,
the CSCE now comprises forty-eight states. It will certainly continue
to play a part in the matter of security and the settlement of disputes.
I would also emphasise that, at the meeting in Prague, the ministers
instructed their Bureau to co-operate closely with the other institutions
active in developing democratic institutions and human rights, particularly
the Council of Europe and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law.

EFTA is trying to establish, with the European Community,
a European economic area.

It thus seems to me that the roles of the various organisations
working in Europe are reasonably clear. The Council of Europe’s
own role is expanding and being strengthened.

May I simply remind you that, at its meeting in November,
the Committee of Ministers emphasised the need to continue developing
the Council of Europe’s role as a rallying point and forum for cooperation
in today’s Europe.

It pointed out that the Organisation had been conceived to
gather together the peoples of Europe on the basis of values – pluralist
democracy, human rights, the rule of law – whose respect is the
prime guarantee of stability and peace on our continent, and that
it constitutes a directly available structure for reception and
co-operation, of which the countries of central and eastern Europe
have an immediate need and in which they are showing a strong interest.

In what I said earlier, I stressed the Council of Europe’s
pan-European mission, now well established within the international
community, which corresponds perfectly to our Organisation’s potential,
objectives, and to the universality of its values.

Events in recent years have shown how hard it is to make long-term
forecasts, and those political scientists who have risked doing
so have been overtaken by the events which have shaken the European
continent. Personally, however, I think I can agree with those who
see the Council of Europe as the crucible of a future European confederation.

Your Assembly will certainly have a significant role to play
in this context.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you.
Does Mr Hunault wish to ask a supplementary question?

Mr HUNAULT (France) (translation)

The basic purpose
of my question was to draw the attention of the Chairman-in-Office
of the Committee of Ministers to what I call the “institutional
deficit” in Europe. The fact is that, while we must on no account
underestimate their importance and the role they have played up
until now, the existing institutions are not equipped to cope with
the demands of the new Europe that is emerging.

That is why I wanted this institutional issue to be raised,
so that steps can be taken to provide the new Europe with appropriate
institutions.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I shall answer Mr Hunault’s second question in a few words.

The institutions were as surprised as the European politicians
by the quickened pace of events in Europe. Nevertheless, – and this
point seems to me crucial – they have taken stock of the need for
inter-institutional co-operation. That is the path we intend to
follow today.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you,
Mr Hunault.

We now come to Question No. 3 tabled by Mrs Grendelmeier:

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers,

– if he can say how the Committee of Ministers intends to
react to the new situation in eastern Europe (the former Soviet
Union);

– if the Council of Europe intends to accept the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS) as an association or each state on an
individual basis;

– if each state is to be accepted on an individual basis,
to what extent the Asiatic states of the ex-USSR can be members
of the Council of Europe;

– where the eastern frontier of Europe ends and where the
frontier lies within Russia, which is two- thirds Asiatic.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

The honourable parliamentarian has put a series of highly
pertinent questions concerning the Council of Europe’s relations
with what was the USSR.

With the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) at Minsk on 8 December 1991, the Alma-Ata agreements
of 21 December 1991 and the disappearance of the old Soviet Union,
it is true that the question of relations between the Council of
Europe and the countries which are succeeding the USSR must be put
in new terms.

The Ministers’ Deputies have begun an in-depth examination
of this issue and will be continuing it next week. I cannot anticipate
their conclusions. It is, however, clear that the Commonwealth of
Independent States is neither a state nor an international organisation
with external relations. The recent Davos meeting with state leaders
fully confirmed this impression.

The question is thus that of relations between the Council
of Europe and the individual states which make up that Commonwealth.

It can also be said that the Russian Federation has taken
on the succession of the former USSR in the Security Council of
the United Nations, but only there and not in relation to any other
agreement.

As for the other republics in the Commonwealth of Independent
States, these have already been recognised by a large, if variable
number of states in the international community. It will now be
up to the Ministers’ Deputies to decide with which states’ relations
should be established and what form those relations should take.

It is not for me to anticipate their decisions and to suggest
geographical or other criteria. It would seem, however, that we
shall soon be able to authorise the Secretary General to initiate
contacts with the governments of certain republics, with a view
to starting work on the planning and implementation of selected projects
as part of the co-operation and assistance programme for the countries
of central and eastern Europe.

Mrs GRENDELMEIER (Switzerland) (translation)

Mr President,
thank you for your reply, although you did not answer my question
about where Europe ends. Presumably this is a question which was
never asked in the distant past. People did not concern themselves
about where Europe’s eastern border lies. For example, does Kirgizia belong?

Another question follows on from what you said. If I have
understood your answer to my question correctly, there is quite
a substantial expansion of the Council of Europe taking place. Would
there be a willingness to provide our staff in the administration
of the Council of Europe with the necessary funds, because they
already do a tremendous amount of work today? I cannot imagine it
being possible to perform this work with the same number of staff.
That is one thing I wanted to say.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

In reply to Mrs Grendelmeier, I would say that I am not aware
of any individual minister, or representative for that matter, in
Europe today who would be able to provide me with a clear, legally
acceptable and internationally recognised definition of Europe’s
boundaries.

Traditionally, the Urals have been regarded as the boundary.

What I do know, however, is that, irrespective of the geographical
situation in one or the other continent, all the countries that
make up the Commonwealth of Independent States are in need of help
and contacts, and are interested in the work of our Organisation.
It will thus be for us – at the international level, of course –
to decide where the true boundaries of Europe lie, not forgetting
that a country as vast as the Russian Federation extends far beyond
those boundaries, even though the majority of its population is
European. That is the problem.

We must now seek bases for co-operation other than mere definition
of belonging to the continent. That is one of the main problems
facing us.

As for the resources available to the administration, and
to our organisation, they have partially been found through budgetary
channels. That they are insufficient is undeniable! But all the
resources available in all countries, in all the organisations,
are insufficient to meet the needs of the new republics of eastern
Europe and the new democracies of central Europe.

We must make do with those resources. The staff of the Council
of Europe administration has also been increased slightly.

THE PRESIDENT

We come
to Question No. 4 tabled by Mr Ruffy:

In view of the valuable role which the Standing Conference
of Local and Regional Authorities currently plays, and in our view
will rightly continue to play in the rediscovered Europe.

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to clarify
the particular areas and the ways in which the conference can provide
a response to the demands placed upon it.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I fully agree with the honourable parliamentarian that the
Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe
has an important role to play in developing co-operation with the
countries of central and eastern Europe. Co-operation at intergovernmental
and parliamentary level must be supplemented by developing close
co-operation between locally and regionally elected representatives
throughout Europe.

Since the changes in the countries of central and eastern
Europe, the CLRAE has amply shown that it can make a major contribution
in this area. The various initiatives taken so far include missions
by CLRAE observers, who have visited several central and east European
countries to follow local elections.

The CLRAE has also helped to train people from local and regional
authorities in these countries and has invited elected representatives
to several recent seminars and conferences.

By continuing to involve locally and regionally elected representatives
as extensively as possible in its traditional activities and in
the development of these training programmes, the CLRAE is playing
an important part in developing local and regional democracy. The
CLRAE is also helping implant and develop associations of local
and regional authorities in those countries.

Amongst the CLRAE’s current major activities, the following
deserve a particular mention: the draft Urban Charter and the implementation
of the Charter on Local Self-Government, as well as co-operation
in specific areas of local or regional authority competence such
as education, culture, transportation, urban development, security
and the question of drugs in the cities, co-operation between given
regions, such as in the Mediterranean, in frontier or island regions,
and North-South co-operation.

At the same time, this forum, which was set up in 1957 as
the first platform for European co-operation between local authority
representatives, is in need of substantial reform, first to give
the CLRAE an increased political influence and weight, and secondly
to give it a genuinely regional dimension by associating with it,
if possible, the political leaders who are at the forefront of this
movement today. I know that this task is not an easy one and that
your Assembly declared its views last year on the proposals made
in this area by the CLRAE.

This highly important reform, which deserves our full attention,
has been under consideration by the Committee of Ministers for a
short time. One of the aims currently pursued is to allow the regions
to organise their co-operation at European level and to devise a
structure for this purpose.

I can confirm to the honourable parliamentarian that the Assembly
will be kept informed as to the results of our work, and it is my
hope that the Council of Europe, which did pioneer work in this
field, will be able to provide an ideal structure for the development
of genuine co-operation both at local or municipal and regional
level.

For its part, Switzerland is determined to make a major effort
to complete this reform as soon as possible.

THE PRESIDENT

Do you wish
to ask a supplementary question, Mr Ruffy? No.

We come to Question No. 5 tabled by Mr Rehn:

Bearing in mind that the European Community is the political
engine of Europe for the time being, but does not cover the whole
of Europe;

Conscious that some of our common problems are clearly all-European,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers what kind
of a future role does he see for the Council of Europe in such fields
as environmental protection and co-ordinating infrastructures in
communications and transport.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

As the honourable parliamentarian emphasises, protection of
the environment and co-ordination of trunk connections in Europe
are questions which go well beyond the twelve European Community
countries and concern the whole of Europe.

At the Council of Europe, environmental issues are considered
with specific reference, firstly, to the management of space and
the natural environment within a committee of governmental experts,
and secondly, under the Convention on the Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural Habitats in Europe, the so-called Bern Convention.

While allowing for the work of other international and European
organisations, the Council of Europe’s role in the natural environment
field should take practical shape in the second pan-European Conference “Environment
for Europe” which is to be held in Switzerland in late 1992 /early
1993, following the holding of the first ministerial conference
at Dobris (Prague) in June 1991.

In this connection, I would remind you that my country played
an important part in paving the way for the fusion of the Council
of Europe’s initiative for a pan-European forum on the environment
with this second ministerial conference. The Council of Europe will
contribute to the report on the state of the environment which is
to be presented at this conference; this will allow it to assert
its European role in respect of the natural environment.

With regard to transport, I would remind you that the Council
of Europe’s intergovernmental programme of activities includes no
specific activities in this area. The question of transport, and
particularly the question of infrastructure co-ordination, are dealt
with as such only within the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities
of Europe and within your Assembly.

So far, the Committee of Ministers has never designated transport
as one of the Organisation’s priority sectors. These questions are
in fact dealt with particularly by the European Community, the European
Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe. Your Assembly is actually very well
informed about the work of the ECMT and I note that there will be
a debate on the subject during this session, in the presence of
Mr Gelestathis, Minister of Transport and Communications of Greece, and
Chairman of the Council of ECMT.

I should nonetheless like to recall that, at the Committee
of Ministers’ last ministerial meeting, some delegations did suggest
that the Council of Europe’s competence should be extended to the
transport field.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you
very much, Mr Rehn. Do you wish to ask a supplementary question?

Mr REHN (Finland)

My question is
closely related to the one asked by Mr Hunault. As the pan-European
role of the Council of Europe is the core of the new European political
architecture, should European countries not try to outline such
a European confederation, based on the Council of Europe, at the
forthcoming CSCE follow-up meeting which will soon take place in
Helsinki? Would you consider promoting that type of procedure and idea?

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Perhaps I was too brief in my answer to your question, but
the Committee of Ministers is aware of this issue. With regard to
your desire to see progress made in this area, I think I can reply
in the affirmative.

THE PRESIDENT

We come
to Question No. 6 tabled by Mr Rathbone.

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers:

– whether the committee, further to its reply to Recommendation
1168 (1991), would agree that its committee for improving the Social
Charter of the Council of Europe, in the next stage of its work,
should develop the potential of the Charter on the basis of the
proposals, which the Assembly has shown to be common ground between
its political groups and national delegations;

– whether he will agree to the necessity of avoiding any unduly
legalistic approach (alien to the original spirit of the Charter),
which is more likely to divide than unite the twenty-six member
governments of the Council of Europe, thus damaging the prospect
of substantial if limited improvements in the near future; such improvements
being all the more pressing in view of the continually enlarging
membership of our organisation.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

In answer to the first part of Mr Rathbone’s question, I would
assure the honourable parliamentarian, as the Committee of Ministers
itself has already done in its reply to the Assembly Recommendation
1168 (1991), that the Committee of Ministers intends to take due
account of the Assembly’s contributions in connection with work to
revitalise the European Social Charter, as it has done so far.

In this connection, I would recall that, immediately after
the Informal Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in Rome on 5
November 1990, Assembly Representatives took part in the work of
the Committee for the European Social Charter; this Assembly participation
will continue as the work of this committee, whose terms of reference
have just been extended by the Committee of Ministers until 1992,
goes on.

I would remind you how quickly the initial work on revitalisation
of the Charter was concluded, leading, on 16 October 1991, to adoption
by the Committee of Ministers of the protocol amending the Charter,
the main aim of which is to clarify the respective powers of the
supervisory bodies. The adoption of that protocol lent particular
emphasis to the ministerial conference, which was held in Turin
on 21-22 October 1991 to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of
the Charter, and at which eleven member states signed this instrument,
one with no reservations pending ratification.

This naturally brings me to the second part of the honourable
parliamentarian’s question. He will certainly agree with me that
these important results would not have been achieved as quickly
if the Committee of Ministers had adopted an unduly legalistic stance.

It goes without saying – this has always been, and will always
be the Committee of Ministers’ consistent approach – that work on
revitalising the Charter must have the flexibility needed to increase
that instrument’s potential, to involve all the member states and
persuade them to accede, particularly at a time when – as the honourable
parliamentarian emphasises – the family of democratic countries
within our Organisation is growing. Here, I would point out that
the new member states are participating fully in the work of the
Committee for the European Social Charter.

I would also emphasise that, immediately after the ministerial
meeting in Turin, the Committee of Ministers acted on the appeals
and recommendations made at that meeting, particularly by calling
on the governments of the member states to accede to the protocol,
so that it could come into force as soon as possible.

The Committee of Ministers also asked the states party to
the Charter and other supervisory bodies to envisage certain measures
provided for in the protocol, even before it had come into force,
insofar as the text of the Charter permitted this. This last appeal
provides proof, if any proof were needed, of the Committee of Ministers’ flexibility
on this question.

I, therefore, have no doubt that all the questions concerning
the supervisory procedure, the material content of the Charter,
the draft protocol providing for a collective complaints system
and the proposals on ways of improving the supervisory machinery
without amending the text of the Charter, which the Committee for
the European Social Charter is at present considering, will be given
the pragmatic attention they require, and that decisions will be
reached which will win this Assembly’s approval.

THE PRESIDENT

Do you wish
to ask a supplementary question, Mr Rathbone?

Mr RATHBONE (United Kingdom)

Thank
you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr President, for that answer. It sounds
as if the developments of the Social Charter are in good hands.
However, there was one element that the President did not mention
– the funding necessary, for instance, for the improved mechanisms
for policing the Social Charter. Bearing in mind what he said, and
the reminder that we had this morning from Mr Walesa about the crucially
bonding element within the Social Charter on a pan-European basis,
I hope that when, and as, improvements in the reporting system or
a system of collective complaints is introduced, the Ministers will vote
the necessary funds to allow it to take place.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a number of problems are
still unresolved. Extra resources should be available under the
1992 budget to facilitate the implementation of some of these mechanisms.

That is all I can say at present in answer to the supplementary
question.

THE PRESIDENT

We come
to Question No. 7 tabled by Mr König:

Referring to his declaration in favour of Switzerland’s accession
to the European Community,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers if he can
say what is the attitude of the Swiss Federal Council on this subject
and what are the implications of this for the European Community
and for the Treaty on the European Economic Area.

The Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers has the
floor.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I shall give a wholly extempore reply to Mr König’s question.

The Swiss Federal Council, the government of my country, stated
its position very clearly on 22 October. I shall recapitulate it
here for the benefit of those who may not be aware of it, particularly
as it came as a surprise to a number of you.

Firstly, the Swiss Government accepted the outcome of the
negotiations leading to the Treaty on the European Economic Area.

Next, noting that this treaty was not totally balanced, particularly
in the institutional sphere which introduced relations between EFTA
countries and the European Community, the Swiss Government took
the view that if this treaty and the European Economic Area were
a necessary, worthwhile and enriching phase, it must lead to Switzerland’s
accession to the European Community; such was to be the aim of its
integration policy.

These, Mr König, are the implications, since you speak of
implications. A few years hence, the European Community will have
an additional member.

Mr KÖNIG (Austria) (translation)

Minister, thank
you for your reply, which shows that Switzerland takes a similar
or even the same position as Austria. However, Switzerland is to
my knowledge the only EFTA country also to require a referendum
on the ratification of the treaty on the European Economic Area.
The treaty on the European Economic Area is a multilateral treaty
between the European Community and the EFTA. What, in your opinion, would
be the consequence for this multilateral treaty if the referendum
necessary in Switzerland were to produce a negative response?

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I am no prophet!

THE PRESIDENT

l am sure
that you are, with honour, in your own country.

We come to Question No. 8 tabled by Mr Talay:

Considering that in October 1991 the Committee of Ministers
decided to suspend co-operation of the Council of Europe with the
Yugoslav authorities;

Noting however that the Council of Europe continued its contacts
with, and assistance to, Yugoslav citizens as well as Yugoslav republics
not directly involved in the conflict in this country;

Considering that of these republics, following Slovenia and
Croatia, Macedonia has applied for special guest status with the
Parliamentary Assembly,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers,

– whether the Council of Europe intends to offer its assistance
to the Macedonian Republic in its efforts to reinforce democratic
institutions;

– in which fields does the Council of Europe intend to initiate
assistance to the Republic of Macedonia within the framework of
its co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe;

– what contacts are being envisaged with the Macedonian authorities
to assess their needs for such assistance.

The Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers has the
floor.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

As the honourable parliamentarian has himself noted, the Committee
of Ministers actually decided, on 8 October 1991, to suspend co-operation
with the Yugoslav authorities.

It is also true that, in November 1991, the Ministers’ Deputies
authorised the Secretariat, as part of the assistance and co-operation
programmes for the countries of central and eastern Europe, to pursue
contacts with individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
in Yugoslavia.

On 19 December, taking account of the European Community’s
positive action in favour of certain republics, but not wishing
to diminish the political scope of their October decision, the Ministers’
Deputies authorised selective and pragmatic co-operation with certain
Yugoslav republics.

Since then, many member states have recognised the republics
of Slovenia and Croatia and, at their next meeting, which is due
to start on 10 February, the Ministers’ Deputies will consider the
question of intergovernmental co-operation with those republics.

I also note that your Assembly, Mr President, has just awarded
special guest status to Slovenia and that applications from other
republics, including Macedonia, are still being considered by the
Assembly bodies concerned.

It must be said that the question of recognising Macedonia
still remains vague.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you.
Do you wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr Talay?

Mr TALAY (Turkey)

Thank you, Mr Chairman
and Mr President. It is interesting to note that of the four Yugoslav
republics which have declared their

independence, only two have been recognised by most European
countries. What will be the role of the Council of Europe? How can
the Council of Europe assist an even-handed approach to the demands
of recognition of the other two republics, namely Macedonia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is essential
not to confuse the forums involved. The Council of Europe is not
called upon to pronounce on the recognition of any given republic.
That is entirely the responsibility of the member states of our
Organisation.

Nevertheless, we think it important that, when the majority,
if not all, of the Council of Europe’s member states have recognised
a particular republic, regardless of which it may be, the Council
of Europe should be allowed to attempt to establish relations with
that republic.

That is the only reply I can give you at present. The general
political debate on the recognition of other states can take place
only within the Committee of Ministers and at a very general level.
It cannot result in a decision by the Council of Europe. In any
case, that debate will certainly take place, as has already happened
within the European Community and other forums.

THE PRESIDENT

We come
to Question No. 9 tabled by Mr Seiler:

Bearing in mind that, in autumn 1991, we invited the Committee
of Ministers with Recommendation 1167 to organise a pan-European
conference in order to find solutions to solve the desperate food
supply situation in the east European countries but that until now
practically nothing has been done,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers what does
the Committee of Ministers plan to do on that question in the near
future.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

In answer to the honourable parliamentarian, I would emphasise
that our Organisation has made considerable efforts to assist the
countries of central and eastern Europe in fields where it has special
and recognised competence, particularly the promotion of human rights,
democracy and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has also provided
ad hoc assistance in the fields of health and education. The appropriations
set aside for this aid in 1992 are twice those provided in 1991.

However, and although the field mentioned by the honourable
parliamentarian deserves our full attention, it must be said that
the Council of Europe does not have the infrastructure needed to
provide aid by way of foodstuffs, and that many other organisations,
such as the European Community and the G24, as well as many states
operating bilaterally, are active in this very field.

THE PRESIDENT

Do you wish
to ask a supplementary question, Mr Seiler? No, I see that you do
not.

We come to Question No. 10 tabled by Mr Akarcali:

Considering that the Council of Europe is the cradle of civilisation,
democracy and human rights, and thus the focus of citizen participation
in political life;

Considering also that the enjoyment of this right should not
be subject to any discrimination;

Considering that, given the rigorous conditions imposed by
France for the acquisition of visas, Turkish citizens, even those
living in neighbouring countries who wish to follow the plenary
sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
do not benefit from this right;

Considering that this situation is incompatible with the basic
principles of the Council of Europe,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers whether
he intends to initiate a discussion on this issue in the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Mr President, first of all I wish to stress that the Committee
of Ministers remains committed to the principle of the removal of
visas between all Council of Europe member states. The principle
of eliminating visas is embodied in the European agreement governing
the movement of persons between member states of the Council of
Europe, ratified by thirteen member states.

I am aware that such an affirmation may seem unsatisfactory
to the honourable parliamentarian who represents a country whose
nationals are often obliged to have visas if they want to visit
other member states. This is not only true with respect to the host
country of this Organisation – and I would like to seize this occasion to
pay tribute to the spirit of generosity and the effectiveness with
which the French authorities have always fulfilled their role as
a good host of the Council of Europe – but also with respect to
other countries like my own. When we last discussed this subject
in the Committee of Ministers, the delegations of the countries
concerned stated the reasons for their having been obliged to resort
to supervisory measures of this kind. Some of them made it clear,
however, that these measures were a response to exceptional circumstances
and I hope that they can be abolished as soon as possible.

Coming now to the specific group of persons to whom you refer,
that is, Turkish nationals wishing to attend the debates of the
Parliamentary Assembly, I have the utmost sympathy for such a wish.
Of course, it is very difficult to adopt general rules on the persons
authorised to enter a specific country which take into account all possible
justified reasons for the wish to enter the country. The Committee
of Ministers is not aware that any Turkish national who has expressed
the wish to attend debates of the Assembly has been refused the
right to enter France.

Nevertheless, I repeat, we recognise the validity of your
concern.

THE PRESIDENT

Do you wish
to ask a supplementary question, Mr Akarcali?

Mr AKARCALI (Turkey) (translation)

I would simply
add that it is difficult for an ordinary citizen even to obtain
the form needed to apply for a visa. I wanted to raise that point,
purely for information.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I have neither the authority nor the capacity to resolve this
problem. It is first and foremost a question of bilateral relations.
However, I shall of course take note of it, and we shall draw it
to the attention of the Committee of Ministers if the occasion arises.

THE PRESIDENT

We come
now to Question No. 11 tabled by Mr GUI.

Recalling that the Algerian people realised their first free
and multi-party general elections to choose their democratic representatives;

Recalling also that both this democratic process and the free
will of the Algerian people have been blocked by a violent military
intervention;

Bearing in mind that the Council of Europe is an organisation
mainly concerned with human rights and democracy, and with the violation
of the right to self-determination of people even outside Europe,

To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers,

– why has the Council of Europe kept silent in this matter,
a silence that was an implicit approval of the military coup;

– whether the Council of Europe supports free elections and
democracy, or should we keep quiet when military coups and juntas
suit us;

– what action does the Council of Europe plan to take to start
the democratic process in Algeria.

I call Mr Felber.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I can only confirm to the honourable parliamentarian, Mr GUI,
that the Committee of Ministers has not so far discussed the recent
events in Algeria. I note that your Assembly has not commented on
them either.

This does not mean that we take no interest in the situation
in that country. On the contrary, our governments are following
developments in Algeria closely and several of them have commented
on this matter.

Personally, I very much hope that the Algerian authorities
will do everything possible to secure a return to normal institutional
life and to ensure that a peaceful dialogue can develop between
the parties concerned so as to continue the democratic process.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you.
Do you wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr GUI?

Mr GÜL (Turkey)

Thank you, Mr Chairman and Mr President. I believe that that
is how we can preserve our credibility and provide leadership for
those countries which are struggling for democracy. Thank you very
much.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I am not going to open a political debate on the recent events
in Algeria, since your Assembly has decided to debate it at this
session.

I would simply repeat that the Committee of Ministers, too,
will certainly be discussing this problem. Who has not done so?
So I cannot, in any case, speak on its behalf.

THE PRESIDENT

Mr Felber,
may I, on behalf of the Assembly, express our thanks to you for
your answers, which were clear and concise. We are most grateful
to you and we thank you for the work that you are doing and we hope
that the co-operation between the Ministers and the Assembly will
continue to fructify. Thank you very much.